Watch this, especially the part where she talks about the credit crisis............she knew well in advance it was happening. Interesting she decided to blame the public.
"President Clinton's tenure was characterized by economic prosperity and financial deregulation, which in many ways set the stage for the excesses of recent years. Among his biggest strokes of free-wheeling capitalism was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. It is the subject of heated political and scholarly debate whether any of these moves are to blame for our troubles, but they certainly played a role in creating a permissive lending environment."
Dec 15, 2016 // 9:12am
As seen on Fox & Friends
Muslim Teen Admits She Lied About Being Attacked by Trump Supporters
King: 'Absolutely Disgraceful' for Intel Agencies to Refuse to Share Info With Congress
Tucker Presses Dem Rep for Evidence That Russian Hacking Influenced Election
Judge Andrew Napolitano questioned whether Russia was really behind the leaks of emails to WikiLeaks, arguing that U.S. intelligence agents had more incentive to try to influence the election outcome.
We learned this morning that an intelligence briefing requested by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) was called off after spy agencies refused to show up on Capitol Hill.
Napolitano said U.S. intelligence agents' identities and locations were exposed by Hillary Clinton's "reckless" use of a private email server as secretary of state. Thus, he said they had the incentive to try to prevent her from becoming president.
"Who had access to all this material without having to steal any codes? United States intelligence agents, who did not want this woman in charge of the federal government," said Napolitano.
In Napolitano's view, the intelligence world is subject to political interference and that may have happened in this case.
"There's a whole world out there that is below the fold, below the radar scope that we don't know about, which is the intelligence community," the judge said.
Napolitano said Julian Assange and WikiLeaks "revealed truthful information" by releasing emails from the DNC and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
"When Donald Trump says the Russians did not hack Mrs. Clinton, he's right," he said. "Somebody leaked from Mrs. Clinton's emails, but nobody went in there and altered her operational systems, which is what hacking does."
Steve Doocy pointed to a new Daily Mail report in which a WikiLeaks operative says that he "personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia."
Meantime, President-elect Donald Trump continued to express skepticism about Russia's involvement.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 14980 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:49 pm Post subject:
EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers
Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange, told the Dailymail.com he flew to Washington, D.C. for emails
He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources
The leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'
Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'
'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists
Murray is a controversial figure who was relieved of his post as British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct but is close to Wikileaks
By ALANA GOODMAN IN WASHINGTON, DC FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 20:33, 14 December 2016 | UPDATED: 23:01, 14 December 2016
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador- WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-hande d-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html
A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.
Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.
'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'
His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.
Craig Murray (left), former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange (right), told the Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September
Murray is a controversial figure who was removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct. He was cleared of those but left the diplomatic service in acrimony.
His links to Wikileaks are well known and while his account is likely to be seen as both unprovable and possibly biased, it is also the first intervention by Wikileaks since reports surfaced last week that the CIA believed Russia hacked the Clinton emails to help hand the election to Donald Trump.
Murray's claims about the origins of the Clinton campaign emails comes as U.S. intelligence officials are increasingly confident that Russian hackers infiltrated both the Democratic National Committee and the email account of top Clinton aide John Podesta.
In Podesta's case, his account appeared to have been compromised through a basic 'phishing' scheme, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.
U.S. intelligence officials have reportedly told members of Congress during classified briefings that they believe Russians passed the documents on to Wikileaks as part of an influence operation to swing the election in favor of Donald Trump.
But Murray insisted that the DNC and Podesta emails published by Wikileaks did not come from the Russians, and were given to the whistleblowing group by Americans who had authorized access to the information.
'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' Murray said. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'
He said the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.'
Without a doubt, Trump campaigned much smarter than Hillary. Now Michael Moore and his ilk are upset because Trump lost the popular vote. Had the rules been different, Trump would have campaigned differently.
Salil Mehta at Statistical Ideas explores that question in Popular Vote Besotted.
No one complained in early October about the Electoral College rules, no one complained that Russian President Putin was hacking our election system, no one complained that the results would be illegitimate if too many Whites versus Blacks come out to vote, and no one complained that Americans were going to have a negative view of Hillary’s e-mails (from servers, to leaks). When asked at the 2nd presidential debate whether the election outcome would be accepted, it was Clinton to had to call Trump’s response “horrifying” and a “taking down of our democracy”. Why not; it was game over after that Access Hollywood gift, and it’s time to plan expensive fireworks over the Hudson River on election night. Those fireworks never happened.
Who campaigned more prudently?
We have been hearing Donald Trump’s side claim that he was simply more ingenious in picking the “key” states to campaign in, and if the traditional rules were to win the popular vote then he would have changed his overall strategy to win that way.
Since Kellyanne Conway emerged as Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, more than a couple months prior to election, we have a record of all the major campaign appearances for both candidates in order to see who took advantage of the vote decision-making time better. Hillary Clinton simply went to 2/3 as many appearances, and each time to smaller audiences, versus her rival. But she did appear from time to time at some music concerts, confidently assuming that was enough (it wasn’t and outside of millennials, she lost the popular vote in the rest of the age spectrum).
We also know that there were 6 economically worse-off states that flipped from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016. She campaigned with less appearances in each of these 6 states. No that’s bad and indefensible. As a portion of all of her appearances, her relative efforts were competitive in five of these 6 states and very strong in Ohio. Yet even in for Ohio’s growing population, her total votes fell ruinously, and her popular vote margin was even more disastrous: from (Obama +3%), to (Clinton -8.1%).
Hillary Clinton wasted nearly 7% of her campaigning in two blue states [California and New York], only to increase her popular vote margin by a total of 1m! But for no good reason as the popular vote margin % was already in the low-20s% in her favor. So this is just another example of unwise campaign strategy.
What if the original rules were the popular vote, then what likely changes would have happened among these two tough contenders? What if Donald Trump spent less time in the 6 states noted above, and instead campaigned harder in states such as California (he never did), and Texas (only one appearance). This would be sufficient to wipe out the current lead Hillary Clinton has in the popular vote, simply by blunting the margin difference between elections (seen in map below). Not enough to suggest Mr. Trump would have had an easy advantage however.
So this is where we need to take an additional leap, from probability theory to game theory. We would have to assume the magical change for 2016 would have spurred up additional voter turnout in these otherwise disparate large states, as they did in the manufacturing, Rust Belt states. The messaging would have therefore have needed to be altered, and there is every reason to believe Donald Trump would have been able to be at least enough effective in that to be successful on the popular vote metric. Whether this means 70% chance, or 55% chance, it is still an effective consideration.
Excellent Analysis once again by Salil Mehta. Nate Silver totally blew this election from start to finish.
Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
orangegeek Dec 24, 2016 11:33 AM
Michael Fatso will be up on attempted bribery charges of Electoral Officials after January 20.
Maybe you should write about that Shedlock.
wisehiney Dec 24, 2016 11:32 AM
What did Adam say the day before Christmas?
"It's Christmas, Eve!
Tiger Rocks Dale's picture
Tiger Rocks Dale Dec 24, 2016 11:33 AM
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. "
BritBob Dec 24, 2016 11:34 AM
She wouldn't have won if it was based on foreign policy.
Secretary Clinton on Falklands during press conference with Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Buenos Aires 2010 : 'As to the first point, we want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. Now, we cannot make either one do so, but we think it is the right way to proceed. So we will be saying this publicly, as I have been, and we will continue to encourage exactly the kind of discussion across the table that needs to take place .'
Now if she'd been well-briefed or done some independent research (she must employ staff to help her out) Hillary wouldn't have fallen for that usurpation (seriously half the world was usurped in the 19th century) and those numerous resolutions that are just proposals from the UN Decolonisation Committee, a committee made up of member states like Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and Syria. Hm. Should have done better...
Clinton Foundation CEO Declared ‘Missing’ By the Internet After Going Public Saying ‘Follow the Money’
Baran Hines January 1, 2017 42 Comments
Twitter users have started the hashtag #WheresEric in reference to Eric Braverman, the former CEO of the Clinton Foundation, because some think he has been a possible missing person since before the November 2016 U.S. election. Braverman’s last public activity, accessible via the internet, was an October 12 retweet.
A common understanding of the events surrounding Braverman’s possible disappearance centers around his abrupt resignation from the Clinton Foundation in January 2015, which many thought was caused by his discovery of internal corruption at the non-profit organization. Braverman named was CEO in July 2013 during the immediate aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State which ended February 2013.
A popular Youtube channel run by a man named George Webb has been tracking Braverman’s story and features daily video updates. Webb thinks Braverman has been missing since October 24, which was two days after it became public knowledge that he was suspected of being a traitor to the Clinton Foundation.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta thought Eric Braverman was the source of information leaks to the media, according to a leaked email sent March 8, 2015, which was published on October 22 of this year by WikiLeaks. This email was one week after a March 1 POLITICO article which detailed his struggle against the tenured Clinton staff, titled “Eric Braverman Tried to Change the Clinton Foundation. Then He Quit.” The article was described as “Not a pretty read” and forwarded to Podesta less than 24 hours after it was published.
While these events occurred in 2015, many believe that the ongoing FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation may be a factor in Eric Braverman’s lack of public activity. The Podesta email releases by WikiLeaks came at the height of campaign season in October, and featured proof of many theories related to Hillary Clinton’s corruption that occurred during the tenure of Braverman at the Clinton Foundation.
The Benghazi scandal unraveled during that time, leading up to Clinton’s testimony before Congress and the subsequent investigations. Near the end of 2014, the discovery of Clinton’s private email server began to cause problems and eventually broke into public view in March 2015, right after Braverman’s resignation.
One of the most damaging emails revealed what has been called a “pay to play” mechanism, where the Clintons sold influence with the U.S. government to wealthy foreign interests. In January 2015, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin and John Podesta discussed a problem related to the deal Hillary Clinton made with the King of Morocco for $12 million.
August 2014 emails revealed Clinton sent Podesta a memo that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding ISIS. While it is clear that Clinton would have known about the Saudi and Qatari links to Islamic State, it is not confirmed if Clinton wrote the memo herself.
The New York Times admitted in April 2015 that untold millions flowed to the Clinton Foundation after a series of deals allowed uranium mining rights to be transferred to Russian state-owned interests. The Russian takeover of the conglomerate Uranium One was approved during Clinton’s tenure at the State Department despite national security concerns which should have prompted more scrutiny. The full scope of the scandal was being discovered late in Eric Braverman’s tenure at the Clinton Foundation.
One independent media outlet claimed to have made attempts to contact Braverman by phone and email, both of which were unsuccessful. The same organization claimed to receive no response after contacting Yale University officials about Braverman, who has taught courses on government and policy in the law school and other departments.
Braverman is still listed on Yale’s website for Spring 2017 classes in the School of Management and the law school. The Free Thought Project was not able to reach Yale University for comment before publishing this report due to the holiday season.
The comments are interesting:
Dygene • a day ago
Bet he was "Arkanized" by the Cliton wet work association.
David W Bolick Dygene • a day ago
Yes, like Supreme Court Judge Scalia... referred to "wet work" 2 days before it got wet in Wikileaks email. How are these criminals not in a firing squad?
It's very common for Hillary associates that talk too much to Shoot themselves in the back of the head 4 times at a distance. The biggest mystery to CNN is how they do that.
JimZimmerman • a day ago
I would bet that he is stuffed in a 55 gal drum stacked 2 miles underground in Yucca mountain radiologic repository. Nothing to see here folks just some barrels filled with Nuclear waste and a few guests,if that is the case he will never be found. He should had a deadmans switch. Poor Guy. He danced with the devil.
Say for example it is documented that a certain transport system employee had been paid by a certain crime agency over $500,000 to pass on personal travel data as a shakedown operation on the general public.
Say for example that transportation corporation had been set up by "Nixon's crew".
Say it was operating on a loss and never made a profit (need to verify that part).
Say that transportation had been getting some heat because of a big crash.
Say John Podesta has a ticket five days previous to supposed hack, lets say for example Hillary Clinton travels using the same transportation corporation.
FREEZE ON FUNDS COULD DOOM AMTRAK PROJECT -- "Editorial: Rauner must act on Amtrak buildout," by Quad-City Times editorial board: "U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos brought home the bacon, but Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner would rather watch it rot. A hugely important Amtrak expansion that would reinstate passenger service between the Quad-Cities and Chicago is suddenly in doubt due to years of state inaction. The federal funds are still available, in no small part to the two-term Democrat's work on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. But Gov. Bruce Rauner's freeze on state funds, amid the budgetary turmoil, could doom the project."
In its first year, Amtrak lost [50 percent more money] than its founders predicted
... the vision of its fathers in the Nixon administration of Amtrak operating as a
“for-profit” company has all but evaporated. Many people close to Amtrak
believe that it has little chance of survival without huge, and probably endless
and ever increasing Federal subsidies–or, as an alternative, a radical cutback ...
in the amount of service it provides.
Glenn Greenwald - August 25 2016, 3:42 p.m.
AS THE NUMEROUS and obvious ethical conflicts surrounding the Clinton Foundation receive more media scrutiny, the tactic of Clinton-loyal journalists is to highlight the charitable work done by the foundation, and then insinuate — or even outright state — that anyone raising these questions is opposed to its charity. James Carville announced that those who criticize the foundation are “going to hell.” Other Clinton loyalists insinuated that Clinton Foundation critics are indifferent to the lives of HIV-positive babies or are anti-gay bigots.
That the Clinton Foundation has done some good work is beyond dispute. But that fact has exactly nothing to do with the profound ethical problems and corruption threats raised by the way its funds have been raised. Hillary Clinton was America’s chief diplomat, and tyrannical regimes such as the Saudis and Qataris jointly donated tens of millions of dollars to an organization run by her family and operated in its name, one whose works has been a prominent feature of her public persona. That extremely valuable opportunity to curry favor with the Clintons, and to secure access to them, continues as she runs for president.
The claim that this is all just about trying to help people in need should not even pass a laugh test, let alone rational scrutiny. To see how true that is, just look at who some of the biggest donors are. Although it did not give while she was secretary of state, the Saudi regime by itself has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with donations coming as late as 2014, as she prepared her presidential run. A group called “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” co-founded “by a Saudi Prince,” gave an additional amount between $1 million and $5 million. The Clinton Foundation says that between $1 million and $5 million was also donated by “the State of Qatar,” the United Arab Emirates, and the government of Brunei. “The State of Kuwait” has donated between $5 million and $10 million.
Theoretically, one could say that these regimes — among the most repressive and regressive in the world — are donating because they deeply believe in the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and want to help those in need. Is there a single person on the planet who actually believes this? Is Clinton loyalty really so strong that people are going to argue with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation is because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its magnanimous goals?
Here’s one of the Clinton Foundation’s principal objectives; decide for yourself if its tyrannical donors are acting with the motive of advancing that charitable goal:
All those who wish to argue that the Saudis donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation out of a magnanimous desire to aid its charitable causes, please raise your hand. Or take the newfound casting of the Clinton Foundation as a champion of LGBTs, and the smearing of its critics as indifferent to AIDS. Are the Saudis also on board with these benevolent missions? And the Qataris and Kuwaitis?
Which is actually more homophobic: questioning the Clinton Foundation’s lucrative relationship to those intensely anti-gay regimes, or cheering and defending that relationship? All the evidence points to the latter. But whatever else is true, it is a blatant insult to everyone’s intelligence to claim that the motive of these regimes in transferring millions to the Clinton Foundation is a selfless desire to help them in their noble work.
Another primary project of the Clinton Foundation is the elimination of wealth inequality, which “leads to significant economic disparities, both within and among countries, and prevents underserved populations from realizing their potential.” Who could possibly maintain that the reason the Qatari and Emirates regimes donated millions to the Clinton Foundation was their desire to eliminate such economic oppression?
It doesn’t exactly take a jaded disposition to doubt that these donations from some of the world’s most repressive regimes are motivated by a desire to aid the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work. To the contrary, it just requires basic rationality. That’s particularly true given that these regimes “have donated vastly more money to the Clinton Foundation than they have to most other large private charities involved in the kinds of global work championed by the Clinton family.” For some mystifying reason, they seem particularly motivated to transfer millions to the Clinton Foundation but not the other charities around the world doing similar work. Why might that be? What could ever explain it?
Some Clinton partisans, unwilling to claim that Gulf tyrants have charity in their hearts when they make these donations to the Clinton Foundation, have settled on a different tactic: grudgingly acknowledging that the motive of these donations is to obtain access and favors, but insisting that no quid pro quo can be proven. In other words, these regimes were tricked: They thought they would get all sorts of favors through these millions in donations, but Hillary Clinton was simply too honest and upstanding of a public servant to fulfill their expectations.
The reality is that there is ample evidence uncovered by journalists suggesting that regimes donating money to the Clinton Foundation received special access to and even highly favorable treatment from the Clinton State Department. But it’s also true that nobody can dispositively prove the quid pro quo. Put another way, one cannot prove what was going on inside Hillary Clinton’s head at the time that she gave access to or otherwise acted in the interests of these donor regimes: Was she doing it as a favor in return for those donations, or simply because she has a proven affinity for Gulf State and Arab dictators, or because she was merely continuing decades of U.S. policy of propping up pro-U.S. tyrants in the region?
While this “no quid pro quo proof” may be true as far as it goes, it’s extremely ironic that Democrats have embraced it as a defense of Hillary Clinton. After all, this has long been the primary argument of Republicans who oppose campaign finance reform, and indeed, it was the primary argument of the Citizens United majority, once depicted by Democrats as the root of all evil. But now, Democrats have to line up behind a politician who, along with her husband, specializes in uniting political power with vast private wealth, in constantly exploiting the latter to gain the former, and vice versa. So Democrats are forced to jettison all the good-government principles they previously claimed to believe and instead are now advocating the crux of the right-wing case against campaign finance reform: that large donations from vested factions are not inherently corrupting of politics or politicians.
Indeed, as I documented in April, Clinton-defending Democrats have now become the most vocal champions of the primary argument used by the Citizens United majority. “We now conclude,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the Citizens United majority, “that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” That is now exactly the argument Clinton loyalists are spouting to defend the millions in donations from tyrannical regimes (as well as Wall Street banks and hedge funds): Oh, there’s no proof there’s any corruption going on with all of this money.
The elusive nature of quid pro quo proof — now the primary Democratic defense of Clinton — has also long been the principal argument wielded by the most effective enemy of campaign finance reform, GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell. This is how USA Today, in 1999, described the arguments of McConnell and his GOP allies when objecting to accusations from campaign finance reform advocates that large financial donations are corrupting:
Senate opponents of limiting money in politics injected a bitter personal note into the debate as reformers began an uphill quest to change a system they say has corrupted American government. …
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the legislation’s chief opponent, challenged reform advocate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to name Senate colleagues who have been corrupted by high-dollar political contributions.
”How can there be corruption if no one is corrupt?” McConnell asked, zeroing in on McCain’s frequent speeches about the issue in his presidential campaign. ”That’s like saying the gang is corrupt but none of the gangsters are.”
When McCain refused to name names, Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, confronted him. Standing just eight feet from him on the Republican side of the chamber, Bennett charged that McCain had accused him of corruption in seeking pork-barrel spending for his home state.
”I am unaware of any money given that influenced my action here,” Bennett said. ”I have been accused of being corrupt. … I take personal offense.”
The inability to prove that politicians acted as quid pro quo when taking actions that benefited donors has long been the primary weapon of those opposing campaign finance reform. It is now the primary argument of Democratic partisans to defend Hillary Clinton. In Citizens United, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a scathing dissent on exactly this point, one that Democrats once cheered:
So if you want to defend the millions of dollars that went from tyrannical regimes to the Clinton Foundation as some sort of wily, pragmatic means of doing good work, go right ahead. But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends. Beyond that, don’t dare exploit LGBT rights, AIDS, and other causes to smear those who question the propriety of receiving millions of dollars from the world’s most repressive, misogynistic, gay-hating regimes. Most important, accept that your argument in defense of all these tawdry relationships — that big-money donations do not necessarily corrupt the political process or the politicians who are their beneficiaries — has been and continues to be the primary argument used to sabotage campaign finance reform.
Hillary Clinton received intelligence that her effort to bring down Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi was leading to the rise of al-Qaeda militants and the Muslim Brotherhood in the country, according to emails released by WikiLeaks.
More than a year before the Benghazi attack, Clinton learned that al-Qaeda terrorists were infiltrating the post-Gadaffi transitional government. Clinton also acknowledged that the Muslim Brotherhood wielded the “real power” in the rebel movement that Clinton was supporting — and that their Brotherhood allies in Egypt were waiting in the wings to move into Libya’s oil sector.
Clinton received a “CONFIDENTIAL” memo from Sidney Blumenthal on March 27, 2011. The subject of the email was “Re: Lots of new intel; Libyan army possibly on verge of collapse.”
Blumenthal explained that “radical/terrorist” groups were “infiltrating the NLC,” or National Libyan Council, a rebel quasi-government that earned French recognition as Libya’s governing body that very same month. Clinton was warned that al-Qaeda could become major players in the region.
Looking For Adventure? Enjoy Fishing, Swimming and Water Sports on the Murray River in NSW.
Looking For Adventure? Enjoy Fishing, Swimming and Water Sports on the…
“This situation has become increasingly frustrating for French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who, according to knowledgeable individuals, is pressing to have France emerge from this crisis as the principal foreign ally of any new government that takes power. Sarkozy is also concerned about continuing reports that radical/terrorist groups such as the Libyan Fighting Groups and Al Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are infiltrating the NLC and its military command. Accordingly, he asked sociologist who has long established ties to Israel, Syria, and other B6 nations in the Middle East, to use his contacts to determine the level of influence AQIM and other. terrorist groups have inside of the NLC. Sarkozy also asked for reports setting out a clear picture of the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in the rebel leadership… …(Source Comment: Senior European security officials caution that AQIM is watching developments in Libya, and elements of that organization have been in touch with tribes in the southeastern part of the country. These officials are concerned that in a post-Qaddafi Libya, France and other western European countries must move quickly to ensure that the new government does not allow AQIM and others to set up small, semi- autonomous local entities—or “Caliphates”—in the oil and gas producing regions of southeastern Libya.)”
On May 30, 2011, Hillary aide Jake Sullivan sent the secretary of state a full list of known “Libya emissaries.” By then, the National Libyan Council had given way to the Transitional National Council (TNC), but the “real power” still lay with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Sullivan’s intelligence memo noted:
“The Qadhafi regime has also met with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood leadership in Egypt. According to Qadhafi chief of staff Fouad Zlitni, the Muslim Brotherhood asserts that TNC may be the political leadership of the opposition, but the real power lies with the Libyan Brotherhood and they are apparently willing to bide their time. The Qadhafi regime also offered to send senior tribal leaders to Benghazi to negotiate with the TNC, but the TNC rejected the proposal.”
Clinton forwarded that email to an aide, acknowledging that she had received it and assessed its contents.
Sidney Blumenthal wrote to Clinton again on July 3, 2012, two months before Benghazi, to talk about the upcoming election. The election, Blumenthal noted, was how the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was hoping to use the new Brotherhood party in Libya to get into the Libyan oil game.
“Source Comment: In the opinion of a knowledgeable individual, the division of the 200 seats in the GNC lies at the heart of this matter, with 120 seats allotted for the Tripolitania, 60 for Barqa, and 18 for the Fezzan area. At present, the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood (LMB) and its political arm, the Justice and Construction Party (JCP), are attempting to mount a national campaign, receiving discreet advice and technical support from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (EMB). With this assistance, Jalil is convinced that the JCP is the party that operates most effectively throughout the country. Jalil has established ties to the EMB, from whom he has learned that JCP leader Mohamad Sowan and his associates are working with the leadership of the EMB.) 4.According to his sources, Jalil believes that he can work with Sowan and the LMB/JCP; however, he is concerned that Mohammed Morsi, the newly elected EMB President of Egypt, and EMB Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie are focused on developing Egyptian influence in Libya. Jalil has been informed privately that these EMB leaders want to establish a strong position in Libya, particularly in the oil services sector as part of their effort to improve Egypt’s economic situation.
Over in Egypt, Clinton helped spur the uprising that led to the Muslim Brotherhood briefly taking power in that country around the same time. And a young Clinton Foundation employee, Gehad El-Haddad, was already working in Cairo to help the Muslim Brotherhood gain power.
El-Haddad was arrested in 2013, following the brief and disastrous reign of Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Morsi, for inciting violence. He was reportedly one of Morsi’s top advisers. El-Haddad was sentenced to life in prison in 2015.
Tags: al-Qaida, Hillary Clinton, Libya, Muslim Brotherhood, Sidney Blumenthal
Show comments _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum